If the user is not confused, I am! I think we should keep the classic stuff
as it is for now, and just release the Java stuff under GPL (but it is not
my decision to make). When people have time they could assess their
respective packages to see if it can become GPL. It seems that I can not
make the decision about an individual package if I do not know what code has
gone in it.
Steve.
-----Original Message-----
From: Norman Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 04 June 2003 14:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Licence statement
Steve,
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Rankin, SE (Stephen) wrote:
> >Also, shouldn't the date
> >be 1983-2003, or whenever the oldest bit of software is -- the date
> >is supposed to be the creation date, and not everything was created
> >this year!
>
> I thought that the date should be when the licence changed. If we put
> 1983-2003, then this would make all previous versions GPL. Would this
cause
> a problem?
No, the date in the copyright statement is when the material was first
put in tangible form, or the year of first publication[1]. The copyright
statement is independent of any licence -- making a copyright
statement says nothing about licence terms, and specifically wouldn't
GPL anything.
> I would put the exclusions in the statement at the top of the CD, but if
> individual packages have code in them that is not GPL then they can not be
> called GPL software. We would have to strip out the non-GPL code. Also,
you
> are not supposed to link agenised any non-GPL libraries (kappa?).
Indeed, and we don't really know which ones this covers.
Perhaps the best thing would be to be up-front about the uncertain
status of the software, and say something like:
Copyright 1980-2003, CCLRC, except where noted internally, or
discussed below.
The Starlink Project has recently made the decision to license its
own software under the GPL. However, this transition is not, and may
never be, complete, and the following points should be borne in mind.
* All the code produced by the Starlink Project itself
is copyright CCLRC and is distributed under the terms of the GPL.
* Some software packages include a CONDITIONS statement which
refers to, or contains the text within, <...>. These are also
copyright CCLRC and this conditions statement should be taken
to refer instead to the GPL.
* Some packages include third-party code which is either non-GPL
code or whose copyright and licence status is unclear. These
packages are therefore not (or not clearly) GPL.
* Some packages consist largely of code donated in gentler times,
when issues of copyright and licences were unimportant and
largely unrecorded. For these packages, some or all of the
licence, copyright and even authorship is unknown, but they
cannot be safely taken to be public domain. You can safely
assume only that they have a broad `academic use only' licence.
This set of packages includes _at least_ Figaro [OTHERS?]
If you wish to use the code for a purpose for which the licence
conditions, authorship or copyright are important, you should consult
the project at [log in to unmask]
The conditions for the Starlink Project code are as follows....
That'll probably cover most cases, since most folk using the software
won't actually care, and would come under the no-commercial-use conditions
anyway. Also if anyone _did_ care about the licence conditions --
someone who did want to make money from this -- this text would make it
perfectly clear that this is a morass, and that it gives them no freedom
in logic or in law to do anything very much except consult the project.
> > For general publications, we suggest referencing:
> >
> > "The authors acknowledge the data analysis facilities provided by the
> > Starlink Project which is run by CCLRC on behalf of PPARC."
As Malcolm said, he raised exactly this issue here recently[2].
That's why it was in my mind. Apologies to Malcolm.
Norman
[1] <http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html> is a copyright site
which has been around for a while, and which I've seen a variety
of pointers to, so it's probably reasonably reliable.
<http://www.benedict.com/info/info.asp> is another one which I've
seen around before.
[2]
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind03&L=stardev&T=0&F=&S=&P=5675
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Gray http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/
Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK [log in to unmask]
|